L00b

He’s doing well to avoid the Biden-shaped elephant in the Kiev-shaped room today 😆

9 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

I totally get your point but my friends and I have a good laugh trying to predict what frothing they can come up with each day!

 

My prediction for tomorrow is a feature on women's football in Uganda.

Oh, we playing frothy politics bingo in this thread? Great! 🤗

EU entries are done, but I’m still missing a “Channel small boats” entry and a “paedo illegal immigrants” entry for today’s grid, seen either?

Still working that ‘15 minutes city’ grid as well, oh my what fun!

1 hour ago, Axe said:

There were too numerous to mention during Theresa May's time as prime minister.  It was only when Boris Johnson became prime minister that it was made clear continued undemocratic behaviour was unacceptable  from Tory MPs (…)

Credit where credit is due, Axe: thank you for that genuine debating engagement.

It’s just a shame that your considered reply reads as the epitaph of Conservatism. Well, what was left of it by 2019.
 

4 years on…Lee Anderson is Deputy Party Chairman.

🤯

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

I would have liked to see Rory Stewart as Prime Minister.

I’d have preferred Clarke, still more statesmanship. But I get your sentiment:

8 minutes ago, Axe said:

I doth protest about nothing.  I am pointing out what actually happened. 

Are you now. So, which Tory MPs conspired and moved the goalposts in order to block the implementation of Brexit, then? With linked evidence if you please, since it ‘actually happened’.😏

Then we can go back to Liz Truss’ reinvention of the Single Market over the weekend. She voted for Theresa May’s deal, so clearly was not one of those ‘unreasonable Tory MPs’…which therefore begs the question: is she being unreasonable now?

2 minutes ago, Axe said:

Yes the goalposts were moved.  I voted to remain but supported Brexit after the EU referendum vote was announced.  I expected David Cameron to implement Brexit but he walked away from his responsibilities.  After Theresa May negotiated a withdrawal agreement I expected all MPs to choose the option they believed was best which was to either support the withdrawal agreement on offer or vote against because they believed the default legal position of leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement was the best option.  I did not expect MPs to conspire and move the goalposts in order to block the implementation of Brexit.

You doth protest too much.

Particularly when, after 7 years of wrangling over the whole thing, your last Prime Minister, still a Conservative MP, just ‘invented’ the Single Market over the weekend:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Supply-Chain/Economic-NATO-should-be-created-to-counter-China-Liz-Truss

Is Liz being ‘unreasonable’? 🤣🤣🤣

1 hour ago, Axe said:

I believe when that vote took place the default legal position was the UK would leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement if the MPs did not support the agreement negotiated by Theresa May.  Staunchest pro-Brexitiers  plus the DUP lot preferred the default legal option rather than the agreement negotiated by Theresa May. I define unreasonable  as MPs who used the meaningful vote to attempt to block the implementation of Brexit.  It was not unreasonable to support either of the two options.

Talk about shifting the goal posts 😂

As for the notion of wanting to Brexit without a deal, it’s safe enough by now, 3 years on and oodles of trading data and disruption later, to say that, had it come to pass, anybody who had a role in that outcome should be arrested and tried for high treason.

55 minutes ago, Axe said:

You both fail to acknowledge there were MPs who voted to remain in the EU and then after the referendum result supported Brexit,  It was the unreasonable Tory MPs who opposed the implementation of Brexit.

When one looks at the detail of the vote, that is alluded to in the above-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/jan/15/how-did-your-mp-vote-on-mays-brexit-deal-meaningful-vote

-it makes for an interesting definition of ‘unreasonable’.

Because those 118 rebelling Tory MPs include the staunchest pro-Brexiters, plus the DUP lot 😏

7 hours ago, Mister M said:

Didn't Boris Johnson purge the parliamentary Tory Party of dissenters of a no deal Brexit in 2019. Yes he did:

The Guardian view on Tory purges: a historic betrayal | Editorial | The Guardian

 

Thinking about it, Sunak should make voting for the NI Protocol Bill a confidence issue, so if Johnson tries to lead a rebellion Sunak can purge lardy Johnson. Don;t think he'll be that bothered anyway, the blond bombsite is just on the grift for more money

Either Sunak caves in to the ERG and bleeds more authority, or he gets the new deal on NI through by using Labour: either way, the Conservatives fracture still more.

Meanwhile, the DUP shall continue to do more for a united Ireland, as it has reliably done since 2016, than Sinn Féin has managed in a century.

SNAFU 😆👍🏻

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

That’s just a speculative article.

the whole argument about further invasion is akin to the soldier who shoots a man half and hour before the curfew starts because he thinks he’ll never make it home in time.

So were the articles about Georgia before 2008, so were the articles about Donbas and Crimea before 2014, so were the articles about Ukraine before 2022 <...>

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Poland and the Baltics have been warning Germany, France and others about deepening their dependency on Russian oil and gas, for years. They've all lived under Russian occupation for decades, before regaining heir sovereignty: they know a thing or two more about the Russian mindset, than western politicians and you.

It's odd that no-one has mentioned Mr Smith in this thread yet. I'd have thought it was rather big news in the UK. Perhaps it is in the news...but not exactly to the taste of very many posters in here 😏

UK embassy guard in Berlin sent 'sensitive' intel to Russia.

Smith said his actions aimed to cause "inconvenience and embarrassment" to Britain, yet denied any intention to cause "prejudice or any disadvantage" to the UK.

He also denied receiving payment in exchange for the information he collected.

The prosecution, however, argued that the defendant had a "clear intention to cause prejudice to the UK." The prosecution said he had reported "strong anti-UK views" to colleagues and expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Prosecutor Alison Morgan told the court that the ex-guard had expressed "anti-West and anti-NATO views."

"He expressed views about the war in Ukraine that were opposed to the Ukrainian government and supportive of Russia," Reuters news agency quoted the prosecutor as saying.

8 hours ago, makapaka said:

Says who?

Says Russia.

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1719118/is-russia-eyeing-the-baltics-again-opinion

Why be surprised?

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Odd that nobody listens to Zelensky!  

<...>

Trumpian exaggeration, or propaganda?

How about 'hyperbole', like your opening swipe at Zelensky?

Of course, some will prefer to call it 'propaganda' instead, with all its negative connotations. That would be anyone "both-siding" the Ukraine-Russia conflict, when not supporting Russia outright.

I don't mind Ukrainian hyperbole.

It is constructive and multilateralist, unlike the Trumpian  slam-dunking, isolationist hyperbole.

And it isn't supporting genocide, unlike Russian propaganda: 

Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian official at the center of alleged Ukrainian children scheme | CNN

Odd that there are still people looking for any old excuses to have a go at Ukraine.

8 minutes ago, hauxwell said:

I want Scotland to stay part of the UK, but if they did become an  independent country  I believe economically they would be okay once things settled down.  How it would effect the rest of the UK that’s a different matter.

Put it that way: they may have to sell the shiny new BMW on the driveway to get by short-term, and replace it with a banger or -even a bus pass- to tie them over for a little while…

…but they’d still have a house, a job, enough to eat - with nothing owing and no more red letters 😉
 

As for the effect on the rest of the UK. I’d have thought many people, esp. the elderly, would be upset initially…but then bygones and onto the next episode of Strictly, tbh.

11 hours ago, geared said:

Not a straight ride into the club though.  As a freshly minted country they won't have any kind of financial record, which is a key part of joining is it not?

 

They also might face resistance from Spain, who aren't keen to see parts of larger countries declare independence then join the EU, they have Basque and Catalan regions to keep in check.

Spain declared 4 years ago that they’d not stand against Scotland’s accession.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland-idUKKCN1NP25P

I think all those alleging Scotland doesn’t have enough of an economy to go it alone, in or out of the EU, are in danger of projecting a little 'Brexity' cakeist mindset.

As EU economies go, it’s comparable population-wise and GDP-wise to other Nordics (Ireland, Denmark, Baltics) with a GDP per head at or above the EU27 average.

Its economy is tertiary, fully-developed and has experienced 40-odd years of EU membership already, so it is 'EU accession'-ready in that respect, a significant advantage relative to the newer EU member states, both at the time these joined and, for some, still now.

Scotland going for independence is not solely an economic decision, it’s an emotional one. After the last 7 years, and the ravages visited on the Scottish economy (the headliners like whisky, fishing, agriculture, but also - and more importantly- the real money earners like professional services) by Westminster's decisions without any consultation, the emotional component amongst Scots is easily triggered on economic matters.

There’s no more or new ‘Project Fear’ to shout at Scotland, that they haven’t already seen and experienced: they know what they had, they know what they lost, they know what they still have now, so they can have a significantly-better educated guess at what more they stand to gain and lose with independence, than in 2014 and 2016.

No set of people ever went for independence expecting to keep all the luxuries in the process. Look at the history of each and every ex-UK colony 😉 But Scotland is arguably better-prepared than most, in that respect.

30 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Probably mainly due to our own failings and tendency to ride rough shod over others and also, levels of corruption in the west.

I’ll not digress about your ‘rough shod’ point, the west (mostly at the US initiative) has certainly embarked on too many adventures.

But where corruption is concerned, ‘the West’ really has no lessons to give to ‘the rest of the world’, and in particular the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
 

Aside from Russia, where do you think the money used to corrupt ‘the West’ comes from? 😉

Other, more detailed reports allege that Ms Yankina was cleaning the said window at the time.

Because a head of financial department at a Russian ministry of state cleans windows.
 

The outside of windows, obviously.

In the middle of winter.

😏

1 hour ago, Jack Grey said:

Facts like Biden actually said he would "end it "?

 

How much more evidence do you need? 

Evidence that Biden blew up up Nordstream or had it exploded on orders.

How many more times do you need to demonstrate your bad faith?

2 hours ago, Magilla said:

In your head... maybe.

Possibly put in his head by Seymour Hersh, or the US Republicans GOP and/or the Fox Network moonhowlers jumping onto his claims, for taking yet another vacuous performative pop at Biden.

Claims which have been comprehensively debunked by the OSINT community, including bellingcat, as usual.

https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/debunking-seymour-hershs-alta-class

Well, I for one am shocked! Shocked I tell you! 😳

8 hours ago, top4718 said:

Imagine still thinking fact checkers are reliable, wow.

They’re certainly more reliable than RT or George Galloway 🤣

Same as Jack Grey, you’re free to link facts proving that Biden sabotaged Nordstream at any given time. Off you go 👍🏻

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

attributed to Martin Luther King

9 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

I kinda like facts

 

Biden said on video that he will blow up the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine

Who said irony was dead? 😂

12 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

And I know that if Trump was president you'd be accusing him of doing it so your just a silly person. 

Do you now?
 

Well I know that if Trump was president, Ukraine would have become Russian within a few weeks of February 2022, the US would be out of NATO by now, and fast on its way to become an autocracy like Russia.

Just shows what you know 😏🤣

Just now, Jack Grey said:

So the video is fake?

 

Biden didnt day that he will 'End' the pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine?

No, the interpretation of that video by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, months and months later, is.
 

Interpretation which you are parroting as ‘fact’.
 

You know the difference between fact and interpretation, right?

Facts are facts. Incontrovertible, not open to interpretation or conjecture. They just are.

Interpretation, well, that’s basically an opinion, and these are like ar****les, everybody has one, some better informed than others, others less. I mean, you know, there’s a sizeable contingent of people who interpret all sorts of facts to conclude that the earth is flat. Right?

So, feel free to revert with facts proving Biden/the US blew up Nordstream 1 and 2 pipelines 🤗

18 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

Watch this very very short video where Biden actually said he will destroy the pipeline. 

 

Turn off the BBC and educate yourself 

 

https://youtu.be/xWUuhNd37WI

 

Can’t believe there are people still falling for that months-old canard from Russia’s Foreign Ministry spox 😳

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-biden-did-not-threaten-to-sabotage-nord-stream-pipelines-as-russian-disinfo-claims/6770228.html

and then arguing the point with a straight face! 🤣🤣🤣

8 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

Biden blew up the pipeline

 

You think your smart but you're clearly not 😂

 

Take off your leftie beer goggles and wake up 

🤪🤣

19 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

I am beginning to wonder if I would be happier not listening to the news or reading newspapers and completely disregard events that I am unable to have any input to.

I have always been a believer in everyone should vote in an election but now wonder if it is worthwhile.

I can’t know if you would be happier or not…but you absolutely shouldn’t “completely disregard events that you are unable to have any input to”, as that would vindicate every effort made by the vested interests so far, in pushing politicians to foist policies on the public against its best interests.
 

Such as Brexit, and the whole raft of attacks on infrastructure, environmental safety, personal and civil rights, etc. ever since.

Maybe just…be less selective about news sources (more sources is always better, it dampens source-respective bias), and be more analytical / critical of what they report (why is that set of sources saying it’s good? why is that other set saying it’s bad? is any of it real and which is which?)

The time-tested, common-sense yardstick is still the same: ‘why are they proposing this and who actually profits from it?’

🙂